Also, anyone who thinks Sinclair Lewis writes better than Faulkner has such serious deficiencies of taste, style, and culture that I can't listen to someone like that about ANY artistic subject. It's like saying Frank Capra is a better director than Ingmar Bergman. Ugh!
Getting back to THE QUIET AMERICAN, it is a poor adaptation because the filmmakers truncated too many of the scenes they used from the book, cut too many good scenes they should have used, and blurred the core drama of the book which is simultaneously sexual and political. The earlier adaptation, despite the compromises made in the last 20 minutes to adjust the politics to anti-Communism, caught the texture of the book far better--perhaps because Joseph Mankiewicz was far more talented than Phillip Noyce, and a fine writer to boot. same thing with the recent remake of THE END OF THE AFFAIR--Greene was better served by the bowdlerized Fifties version, compromises and all.
The black-and-white cinematography in the older version was flat and indistincive, not up to par with the standards set by many black-and-white cinematographers. The composition of the scenes were on a par with a common photo family album. It's not "visually rather nonsensical" (!) to put each to a comparison with other production design and cinematography of the same period.
One may believe the adaptation was poor due to objections over artistic license but appreciate a film on it's own grounds and in the final result. Noyce hasn't been making films long enough to make a justifyable comparison to Mankiewicz who gave us such gems as "Cleopatra, "The Honey Pot," "Guys and Dolls," "The Barefoot Contessa" (his answer to Douglas Sirk), while still giving us some of the great films, "All About Eve," "House of Strangers" and "Sleuth."
I didn't say Lewis was a better writer than Faulkner.
Your snide remarks are so noted.
Touchy, touchy, Lightwizard. You're the one who said my comments made you break out into laughter. Did I complain about that? You really should grow a thicker skin if you're going to joust with me in these discussions.
That was directed at someone who is no longer with us -- unless you consider yourself Ernest Hemingway reincarnate.
How could my saying that Hemingway read KING LEAR evey year make you burst into laughter AT HEMINGWAY? You are getting more and more desperate in your attempts to justify your own silliness.
The image of Hemingway hovering over the text of "King Lear" (perhaps in his island home by candlelight) made be laugh -- if you believe I was laughing at you, let's not talk about being thin skinned. You can believe in anything you want in your own silliness.
What I believe in is logic and common sense--two qualities notably alien to your posts.
